I don't understand

I don't understand.

Can you help me understand, Sup Forums? I'm so distressed.

Please respond.

"I am a hack"

-Shane Carruth

what did he mean by this?

I didn't understand how she got to the facility where they take the worm out of her

i used to be a big fan of shane until i realized his movies just look and sound nice for the budget. the actual movies themselves suck.

I literally just got finished watching Primer like half an hour ago. It was god tier and you know it.

Psychic pigs. That's all you need to understand.

it's god tier when you find out how he made it with no money and did everything himself. but if you look at it objectively and forget that it was made for scraps, it's just okay. it's lightyears better than upstream though.

They said the parasitic worm responds to the infrasonic sound played by the autistic pig farmer.

Have you seen Upstream Colour though?

Did the pig farmer purposely dump the piglets into the stream so the parasites could continue their cycle into the orchids? Was that his intention?

A woman gets infected with a mind-control parasite that is a small part of a large illegal conspiracy. She meets a man that had the same done to him.

I personally didn't care for Primer because I don't enjoy time travel or sci-fi movies, but I can understand the appeal. UC on the other hand I see people praise for the "visuals" and calling it beautiful or comparing Carruth to well known directors but it really isn't all that. It's literally the same complicated story with very amatuer directing, editing, acting. Just another cheap sci-fi idea except this time presented in the most pretentious way possible at a pathetic attempt to evoke emotions in the viewer

pig otherkin get scammed

DUDE DEEP LMAO

Who is this cum drum?

The thief should have had enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life though. He robbed so many people of their lifesavings I mean.

Primer: Obfuscated because that was the nature of the story. The future is unknowable.

Upstream Color: Obfuscated as a shtick.

yeah pretty much this

Thief: Sand-nigger who eats worms, insects and scrubs because of his ethnicity and accidentally discovers the mind-altering potential of the parasitic worms.

Orchid farmers: Hippies who go trekking and are drawn by the vibrant colour (which, unbeknownst to them, is a result of the parasites) of the orchids and decide to harvest them to sell as decorative flowers.

Pig farmer: Somehow knows that the pigs are a vector for the parasitic worms and how to transfer them from humans who have ingested the worms, knows how to draw infected humans to himself using specific sounds, knows how to telepathically engage with the humans whom he transplanted the parasites to specific pigs.

Who is the pig farmer? How did he know all this? He couldn't have chanced upon all of it unlike the thief or Orchid farmers.

The pigs lived a good life tho.

Yes. The "point" of the film in some ways is to show how the various components in the life-cycle of the "ageless organism" are acting both compulsively, but (since they are human) with a veneer of rationality to justify their actions to themselves.

The background question in the film was the extent to which one was actually controlling the destiny of the other.

it's fucking stupid. plus why does he have to record sounds in nature and not just use a keyboard. this whole movie fell apart the further it went. and then they take the pigs home with them which I guess makes sense but seemed really stupid. And they never explained how they got over their hypnosis or whatever.

oooooOOOOHHHHHH THE CIRCLE OF LIFE!

whoa that's good! I remember that!

Shane Carruth is the man.

fuck all you Refnfags and rubrickfags

I think they got over the mind control once the parasites matured and exited their bodies into the pigs. With the help of the pig farmer.

I agree with the rest of what you said though. Everything was incoherent nonsense which only served to make the film seem deep.

It was a lot more cynical than that. In the fucking Lion King, the presentation of ecological cycles was that everything was progressing together in some kind of mystical balance.

In UC, it was more that the organism had fallen into a powerful ecological niche and was able to use external actors as tools in its propagation, whether it destroyed them or not.

Being human is to suffer: the movie

It's a good movie but it's wrapped in a package that will definitely come across as pretentious to a lot of people, and I don't mean it as "plebs", Carruth really let himself fly off into the deep end of self-indulgence with the movie and it doesn't really work out as well it may have if the narrative was a bit less drawn-out. I've noticed that whenever I try to remember the movie, Shane's character is basically non-existent and so is most of the romantic development that happens in the second act.

I'll say something about this movie though: the scenes where she's hypnotized and drinks the water are shot in a way that made water seem like it was really the tastiest most delicious thing in the whole world, really made a point on the power that cinema can have on your mind.

misa campo

but the lion king is real. not some hipster faggots screenplay.

oh yeah, haven't seen it in a while but I had no desire to watch again. there wasn't anything redeemable about the characters.

Does anybody feel like life is unbearably difficult and fraught with an constant series of failures and disappointment?

If it was truly unbearable you wouldn't still be alive.

She started doing hardcore porn? I thought she had a baby and quit her cockteasing non-nude modelling career. Sweet!

n...... no.......

I'm only alive because the fear of death outweighs the unrelenting suffering that is life.

Animals go extinct in Africa all the time. Not just anthropogenically.

But anyway, of course UC comes off as pretentious. You can't try and stuff a highbrow ecological plotline into a film WITHOUT pretense. And it's kind of stiff and weird in parts as a result. And there are linkages in the plot that are downright strange. And the whole "fugue state" stuff isn't entirely developed.

BUT, it's a lot more engaging than most films, and it IS coherent; it's just also abstruse and indirect.

I watch films and sometimes barely remember what the fuck even happened in them. But UC leaves an impression, whether you want one or not.

Therefore something you can bear to withstand.

it's good, if you didn't understand or get it that's on you

sup Shane

You are honestly the worse type of person, a man creates a piece of art and you tear it to fucking shreds then go on to praise the latest Hollywood blockbuster, go fuck yourself

BULLSHIT

hey everyone, shane's back!

I always pictured Shane as more of a redditor.

I really don't understand how self indulgence is used as criticsm in art. I mean, why shouldn't he indulge, or for whom should he indulge if not for himself? The fact that the movie exists at all is because of self indulgence, it has no other reason to exist. He is making art, he's not trying to entertain. This buzzword is thrown around a lot when "criticizing" art film directors or obtuse artists in general, like Refn. I guess it makes sense when criticizing someone like Tarantino whose main objective is clearly to entertain, so it feels jarring when he adds unnecesary or retarded scenes.

The key to understanding this film is the idea that neither the thief, the sampler, or any of the victims are actually aware of the parasite's lifecycle. The film ends with the main characters believing they have killed the thief, in a kind of "happy ending".

But what's the point of the movie?

it's called foley, a method of sampling sound.

SAUCE

The source was given before and I looked her up but she wasn't as hot as in that picture. It's probably the angle combined with her expression which portrayed a mixture of discomfort, shame and regret that Sup Forums loves seeing in women because we are a bunch of misogynistic virgins.

Lmao relax , buddy

It tried to be Aronofsky's the fountain but was closer to Begotten: cool visuals but no message whatsoever.
When there are poetic visuals in a movie I sit back and try to let the meaning sink in from the narrative anchors, but when the poetic images are the narrative anchors without any kind of real basis as to what they mean, then the movie is fucked. Enemy is a prime example of this.
I tried watching UC based on the visuals and the promise of a compelling story but instead I was served a slogfest of snores and slime that presented itself as deep and meaningful, but was as amateurish and pretentious as only unintelligent ambitious people can be.
0/10, would rage at again.

fuck off Shane you c.uck

Have you seen Primer though?

Being obtuse is your fault. Failing to get your message across is on you. If you are claiming something the burden of proof is on you. The fact that there is not a sufficient amount of symbols to convey a coherent message is not proof of my lack of understanding, but showcases your own obtrusiveness and cowardice when it comes to saying something. Hypermodern irony kills meaning, there is no two ways around this.

You're allowed to say cuck now.

the guy in this movie has gf and sex though

Criminals exploit an unknown organism for profit. Two innocents end up being forced into that organisms life cycle.
It's all a metaphor for the way our little, seemingly discrete lives are part of infinite networks of causal linkages.